Magwells for Production and Carry Optics?

[BritinUSA]

Your entire post is the reason this forum needs a ‘Like’ button.

[BritinUSA]

Caveat: There will always be outliers in this sport, those individuals who will perform better than most regardless of their equipment, similarly there are some that will NEVER achieve competence in this sport no matter what equipment they use. I am one of the latter.

 

Back in 2014 before CO became a 'thing' - and most USPSA matches were handgun matches - there were six divisions.

 

Open, Limited and Production were the most popular followed by Limited-10, Single Stack and Revolver.

 

Revolver had more participation back then, as many people owned a venerable 6-shooter that they could bring out once in a while. Then USPSA introduced 8-round Minor, this 33% increase in capacity changed the division. To remain competitive required a new purchase, for many there was simply no point in this expense for a division they rarely shot anyway. Now the division is struggling more than ever.

 

Single Stack has an ardent following, essentially the NASCAR division of the sport, the equipment is - for the most part - the same as it has always been, and I hope that continues. It is perhaps the last bastion of purity left.

 

Limited-10, a bastard step-child of the Clinton gun ban its time is long past, and I suspect its end is just around the corner.

 

The three remaining divisions made up the bulk of USPSA competitions at all levels, Club, State, Area and Nationals.

 

Two were expensive; Open and Limited guns can cost many thousands, while Production offered a cheaper alternative and many new members could use their existing guns, and be competitive due to the restrictions on changes.

 

What was missing was a low cost optic division; Production Optics completed the set.

 

Now there were Two expensive divisions, and Two where cost was less of an issue.

Two divisions for Major, Two for Minor.

Two with Optics, and Two with Iron Sights.

Two with Hi-capacity magazines, and two with Lo-capacity.

 

 

The costs of Production/Production Optics could be controlled by limiting changes to those guns. While it is true that some of them can cost $2000 or more, the limitations on round count and hardware changes essentially made the guns the same.

 

For outliers the equipment is less of an issue but for the vast majority these differences in divisions offered something for everyone of every ability and finances.

 

All of that has gone.

 

The changes in Production/Production Optics have not improved these divisions, they have just exploded the cost of those divisions. In order to maintain competitive equity members now have to spend more money just to re-level the playing field.

 

Instead of looking at each division separately and trying to make them all the same, USPSA should be maintaining the differences between them. It is those differences that give the competitor real choice.

Edited April 25, 2021 by BritinUSA

[obsessiveshooter]

21 hours ago, Twinkie said:

 

You sweet summer child. You missed the entire point of the equipment differences which make divisions interesting and different challenges from one another.

 

Who exactly do you mean when you say "where USPSA really wants them to be in 10 years?" Who exactly do you mean by USPSA? Do you meqn Foley, Martens, Troy? Someone else? Did you mean the membership? Because we, the membership are expressing our disapproval of how those in leadership positions are diluting the divisions and reducing our enjoyment of the game. You can discount our desire to keep things traditional, but it is that reluctance to be faddish and to have stable rules which make USPSA the most prestigious action shooting sport. 

 

The reason for restrictions is to provide for different shooting challenges and meet the desire to have different buy-ins for participation. More options to set up your belt is actually fewer options, because we will all end up with some variation of the Open rig. That is less choice, not more. You can choose something worse, but why would you?

 

As for USPSA growth, were membership and participation numbers dropping before PCC, CO, and now light weights? No, they weren't. So why the radical changes? Sponsorship opportunities? Who do those benefit, exactly? Why are the costs so high that we need sponsors to have matches? Who exactly are the people who didn't play USPSA because they couldn't have a light on their 50oz carry gun or shoot a rifle at pistol targets?

 

USPSA doesn't need radical growth. It needs to stay true to its principles and to its egalitarian ideals. It needs more ranges. It needs more clubs. That will get more members and more matches, not rifles at pistol matches, 50 oz "carry" guns, open rigs for everyone, and light weights.

 

Look, I get what you're saying. It seems sexy and inclusive to open rules up and allow everything. But you could already do that. Shoot Open. There was no need to change the rules to attract new shooters. The game was fine. Adding CO could have been done differently but for the most part it integrates well with the other divisions. But, reducing the differences between divisions and making everything an equipment race is not liberty. It doesn't increase options but rather it makes anything other than the best possible option untenable. If I can have a heavy gun, I need a heavy gun. If I can have a laser on my rifle I need one. If I can have mag pouches up front I need them. If I can have a 50rd magazine I would be a fool not to. If I can have a magnet I have to have one. See how more options actually just increase costs and make people have to buy new equipment?.

 

What happens, or at least did in my case was when Production got to be just like Limited I said "to hell with this, why not just shoot Single Stack?" Single Stack is more like Production than Production ever was. Restrictive equipment rules have great appeal because everyone can compete at a lower buy-in. That is crucial for member growth because there really isn't an entry level division anymore. "Liberty" killed Production. 

I'm not naive at all about this, I've been shooting USPSA since 2014 and I've seen a ton of changes.  

*Yes, by USPSA I mean the Pres and the people who are in real leadership.  USPSA isn't a democracy and it doesn't sound like they have ever sought formal input on these changes.  They are going to do what they are going to do.  My attitude is, if they are headed somewhere particular, let's just get there NOW.  Or from your perspective, "rip the bandaid off fast". 

*I've never heard the justificiation for the divisions as being different price tiers.  

*Arbitrary restrictions, like X.X oz, or X distance from your hip bone, etc, in my mind, are not a good ways to present a different shooting challenge for a particular division.  Even you admit that there is a best option for mag placement on a belt, so there needed to be a really good reason to disallow the "best" option.  I'm sure that originally had something to do with how people would carry on-duty or concealed, but we left that behind forever ago and there is no point in moaning about the good old days.

*I never said USPSA needed rapid growth, but they do need a growth mindset, even if it is marginal growth.  Every organization does.  Just about the only new shooters I see at matches are coming from the tactical world, and a LOT of them show up with pistols with a light on them.  

*What is the real cost of these "must-haves"?  Is it really that bad, and how does it compare to the money we put into ammo, match fees, etc?  Since when does the typical USPSA shooter have a problem with buying gun stuff? A magnet, if you want one, is like $30.  It doesn't cost anything to move things around on your belt to a spot that is most comfortable for you.  A heavy gun like a CZ always had an advantage over polymer, and if people are going to be adding lights to their CZs, I'm guessing it will take things too far and they won't find an advantage with a timer. But now the cheap polymer pistols can be made to behave more like a more expensive metal frame pistol.  I have a Canik and I bought a knockoff X300 for it for under $30.  Did I resent making that purchase?  No, it was fun.  

*"Production got to be just like Limited" is hyperbole, in my opinion.  You could customize you pistol a bit more, but the shooting challenges remain as different as ever.  

*I agree about Single Stack.  I like the idea of the equity of equipment.  I think it would be so much fun to shoot one match a year where everyone shoots the same shared box-stock Glock.   But, I wouldn't want every match to be like that, and the participation in Single Stack shows that equity-of-equipment thing is a low priority concept for most.  

 

As an aside, there seem to be a few camps in all this.  1)The people who are in USPSA to win it. They have sponsorships, youtube channels, and a lot of skin in the game.  They were succeeding with the old rules, so they have no interest in change.  They feel like they are the backbone of USPSA, they are very vocal and have a pulpit, but they are a tiny minority.  They will roll with every rule change because they are competitors and no matter the rules, winning is the drive.  2) The long-time members who have seen the changes over time.  Some will like the rule changes and some will hate them.  As in all things, the upset people will be the most vocal.  3) Those who are new to the sport.  They won't care at all, and they certainly won't resent buying a magnet, when everything else they have to buy for USPSA has no real-world utility either.  

If I'm right about the above, then maybe the leadership at USPSA is quite aware of who thinks what before they make a decision, but they have just placed those opinions on a scale.  

[RJH]

50 minutes ago, obsessiveshooter said:

I'm not naive at all about this, I've been shooting USPSA since 2014 and I've seen a ton of changes.  

*Yes, by USPSA I mean the Pres and the people who are in real leadership.  USPSA isn't a democracy and it doesn't sound like they have ever sought formal input on these changes.  They are going to do what they are going to do.  My attitude is, if they are headed somewhere particular, let's just get there NOW.  Or from your perspective, "rip the bandaid off fast". 

*I've never heard the justificiation for the divisions as being different price tiers.  

*Arbitrary restrictions, like X.X oz, or X distance from your hip bone, etc, in my mind, are not a good ways to present a different shooting challenge for a particular division.  Even you admit that there is a best option for mag placement on a belt, so there needed to be a really good reason to disallow the "best" option.  I'm sure that originally had something to do with how people would carry on-duty or concealed, but we left that behind forever ago and there is no point in moaning about the good old days.

*I never said USPSA needed rapid growth, but they do need a growth mindset, even if it is marginal growth.  Every organization does.  Just about the only new shooters I see at matches are coming from the tactical world, and a LOT of them show up with pistols with a light on them.  

*What is the real cost of these "must-haves"?  Is it really that bad, and how does it compare to the money we put into ammo, match fees, etc?  Since when does the typical USPSA shooter have a problem with buying gun stuff? A magnet, if you want one, is like $30.  It doesn't cost anything to move things around on your belt to a spot that is most comfortable for you.  A heavy gun like a CZ always had an advantage over polymer, and if people are going to be adding lights to their CZs, I'm guessing it will take things too far and they won't find an advantage with a timer. But now the cheap polymer pistols can be made to behave more like a more expensive metal frame pistol.  I have a Canik and I bought a knockoff X300 for it for under $30.  Did I resent making that purchase?  No, it was fun.  

*"Production got to be just like Limited" is hyperbole, in my opinion.  You could customize you pistol a bit more, but the shooting challenges remain as different as ever.  

*I agree about Single Stack.  I like the idea of the equity of equipment.  I think it would be so much fun to shoot one match a year where everyone shoots the same shared box-stock Glock.   But, I wouldn't want every match to be like that, and the participation in Single Stack shows that equity-of-equipment thing is a low priority concept for most.  

 

As an aside, there seem to be a few camps in all this.  1)The people who are in USPSA to win it. They have sponsorships, youtube channels, and a lot of skin in the game.  They were succeeding with the old rules, so they have no interest in change.  They feel like they are the backbone of USPSA, they are very vocal and have a pulpit, but they are a tiny minority.  They will roll with every rule change because they are competitors and no matter the rules, winning is the drive.  2) The long-time members who have seen the changes over time.  Some will like the rule changes and some will hate them.  As in all things, the upset people will be the most vocal.  3) Those who are new to the sport.  They won't care at all, and they certainly won't resent buying a magnet, when everything else they have to buy for USPSA has no real-world utility either.  

If I'm right about the above, then maybe the leadership at USPSA is quite aware of who thinks what before they make a decision, but they have just placed those opinions on a scale.  

Your entire post is why this forum needs a like button 

 

 

According to uspsa i have only been doing this for 16 years and the only and the only rule changes that really seem to have screwed shooters are going to 8 round neutral and then later allowing 8 round revolvers. That is the only rule changes that really seemed to make a predominant gun in a division completely uncompetitive and irrelevant. 

 

Any other rule change, even if i didn't agree with it at the time, seems to have worked out fine.  

[rowdyb]

IF you go back and read the original BOD notes and releases about Production you will see that keeping a low cost and increasing participation were things they definitely considered key to the division. At that time...... Heck you can do forum search here and go back and read all the "issues" with Production in 2003, 2004.... It is interesting reading if you started shooting after say 2010....

 

Today???? Just what would "they" say are the two most important traits to define the Production division?

[BritinUSA]

I think every division in the sport should have a clearly defined purpose/reason. If that were true today then I don’t think we would see the numerous changes that have occurred in the past few years.

 

The most recent changes are not in keeping with the ‘original intent’, but as a means to bring people into a sport without them having to invest any money in their equipment.  
 

But the changes occur expenses to existing members instead.

 

It seems backward to me.
 

 

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

Manipulation of the rules almost always has a cascading effect. 
rules changes at this point should be like Making and passing a new law. 
well.... at least how the country was intended to pass laws. 
SLOW. 
proposed, talked about, tabled,Talked about then voted on. Time !!! Lots of time. 
to see if there is knee jerk reactions to a nonexistent issue. 

 

[vluc]

Can the genie be put back in the bottle is the question?  Does leadership have the stones to admit this may not have been as well thought out as it should and revisit it, or will there simply be more clarifications.

[BillChunn]

The mag well came with the Sig P320 X5 Legion as it's legal for CO division in IDPA.  For those that shoot both sports, it would be easier to leave the mag well on the gun when competing in USPSA events.

 

Hell, those of us that migrated from Open to CO would appreciate a mag well.

 

HH

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

Magwells

Personal at this point what’s it even matter. It’s the only thing Not added yet. 
im more concerned with what’s the direction “they “have for these classes ?

Whats the vision of the future ?

if there is non and these are changes just to make changes. 
the law of unintended consequences will hit us in the face hard one day. 
I would like to hear the goal and vision the “ rules committee”has. 
This way as competitors we can more understand the direction and anticipate changes. 

[BritinUSA]

6 hours ago, vluc said:

Can the genie be put back in the bottle is the question?  Does leadership have the stones to admit this may not have been as well thought out as it should and revisit it, or will there simply be more clarifications.

I think it’s too late, I think they’ve run it off a cliff. 
 

It’s not just the recent division changes, just about every division change over the past 4+ years seems to be suspect. I understand that there are many people who like the changes, but what is the direction here ?

 

If HQ has to issue multiple rule clarifications each time a division is changed/added then they have not performed due-diligence. This does not inspire confidence that they have a clear plan/direction.

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

For me this is the core issue. 
Direction/vision or goal of the class !
It gets really confusing when the core 

values of a class aren’t followed. 
Example  a stock class that always 

Titanium or inconel reproduction parts

or a Race/all out class that requires 

stock oem parts. 
That’s just a example. But 
Ive seen simple rule changes in racing that wreck a class before most people can get back to the track to test. 
 

[Racinready300ex]

After seeing the new lok brass flashlight, the more I think about it the more I think our divisions have become a joke. I'm moving into the camp of do what ever you want in all the divisions who cares. I think that's the direction we're headed anyway.

[motosapiens]

On 4/24/2021 at 12:17 PM, BritinUSA said:

The changes in Production/Production Optics have not improved these divisions, they have just exploded the cost of those divisions. In order to maintain competitive equity members now have to spend more money just to re-level the playing field.

 

i disagree with this 100%, and also with your earlier post about 140mm magazines being bad for CO. allowing more changes to guns makes it easier for people to be competitive with cheap guns, instead of having to buy semi-custom-shop race guns.

 

10 round magazines means people need to have 5-6 magazines, and 4-5 mag pouches at a minimum. with 140mm mags, I was able to be competitive with 2 pouches and 3 magazines (only 2 of which were extended length.

 

we just set up mrs moto for CO last fall, and it was pretty reasonable. sig legion and an optic and 3 mag extensions and 3 mag pouches and we were ready to roll.

[motosapiens]

On 4/24/2021 at 10:41 AM, Twinkie said:

More options to set up your belt is actually fewer options, because we will all end up with some variation of the Open rig. That is less choice, not more. You can choose something worse, but why would you?

 

Lots of us don't run our mags all the way forward. I'm more comfortable (and faster) with them set more to the side, and I've seen plenty of other M and GM shooters with similar setups. Seems like personal preference to me, not a matter of better vs worse.

[Racinready300ex]

12 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

i disagree with this 100%, and also with your earlier post about 140mm magazines being bad for CO. allowing more changes to guns makes it easier for people to be competitive with cheap guns, instead of having to buy semi-custom-shop race guns.

 

10 round magazines means people need to have 5-6 magazines, and 4-5 mag pouches at a minimum. with 140mm mags, I was able to be competitive with 2 pouches and 3 magazines (only 2 of which were extended length.

 

we just set up mrs moto for CO last fall, and it was pretty reasonable. sig legion and an optic and 3 mag extensions and 3 mag pouches and we were ready to roll.

 

140's end up costing about double what your standard mag is. So half as many mags isn't really a saving. Personally I'd rather see 15 rounds so you don't need to spend $60 on top of the cost of your mags just to get up to speed. Just about every gun you could shoot can hold 15 out of the box. 

 

Finicky 140's just aren't vary practical, but what is anymore?

[RJH]

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

140's end up costing about double what your standard mag is. So half as many mags isn't really a saving. Personally I'd rather see 15 rounds so you don't need to spend $60 on top of the cost of your mags just to get up to speed. Just about every gun you could shoot can hold 15 out of the box. 

 

Finicky 140's just aren't vary practical, but what is anymore?

I don't think he meant it was a savings, just that it wasn't really costing anymore.

 

Also, I don't know about finicky 140s. I've run 140s in my plastic guns for years and never had an issue. And my mags with base pads Etc cost about 70 bucks a piece. So about double a standard mag

[Racinready300ex]

1 minute ago, RJH said:

I don't think he meant it was a savings, just that it wasn't really costing anymore.

 

Also, I don't know about finicky 140s. I've run 140s in my plastic guns for years and never had an issue. And my mags with base pads Etc cost about 70 bucks a piece. So about double a standard mag

 

 

Ever go to a major and pay attention to what guys clean their mags after every stage?

[RJH]

2 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

 

Ever go to a major and pay attention to what guys clean their mags after every stage?

 

Probably the guys like me that have Easy-Off Dawson base pads LOL. Very easy to clean mags when you have those. When I shoot my single stack gun with Chip McCormick mags I generally just pray that they work because I hate taking them bastards apart:-)

[motosapiens]

5 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

140's end up costing about double what your standard mag is. So half as many mags isn't really a saving. Personally I'd rather see 15 rounds so you don't need to spend $60 on top of the cost of your mags just to get up to speed. Just about every gun you could shoot can hold 15 out of the box. 

 

Finicky 140's just aren't vary practical, but what is anymore?

not necessarily a savings... but not really an added expense either. and I haven't seen any CO mags that are finicky. I don't care that much about 15 rounds vs 140mm. the only real issue with 15 rounds is you would still really need 4 pouches at a minimum, for those stages where someone unimaginative simply puts 4  8-round arrays together with no other reasonable place to reload.

 

7 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

 

Ever go to a major and pay attention to what guys clean their mags after every stage?

every serious shooter? in every division?   that's what I see. 

I don't see any differences between co and prod in terms of mag cleaning. with or without mag extensions doesn't seem to make a difference, and the mags are much less finicky than 2011 maqgs.

[motosapiens]

4 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

Probably the guys like me that have Easy-Off Dawson base pads LOL. Very easy to clean mags when you have those. When I shoot my single stack gun with Chip McCormick mags I generally just pray that they work because I hate taking them bastards apart:-)

I've gotten pretty good at taking apart CMC mags, but the good news is that they are not quite as finicky due to the metal followers. mags with plastic followers (wilson and tripp, for example) need to be kept much cleaner in my experience.

[ddc]

13 hours ago, vluc said:

Can the genie be put back in the bottle is the question?  Does leadership have the stones to admit this may not have been as well thought out as it should and revisit it, or will there simply be more clarifications.

 

I'm trying to remember being a member of an organization where management said "mea culpa, we screwed up".

I seem to recall there usually being some sort of hand waving, smoke blowing, semi-rational rationalization.

And then a bunch of follow on modifications that resulted in some sort of bastardized version of what should have been the original plan.

Maybe I'm just remembering the bad times 'cuz they've stuck in my brain longer.

[C-Money]

5 hours ago, motosapiens said:

Lots of us don't run our mags all the way forward. I'm more comfortable (and faster) with them set more to the side, and I've seen plenty of other M and GM shooters with similar setups. Seems like personal preference to me, not a matter of better vs worse.

I get it, but the hip bone rule was a bit of flavor that has been lost. Now things will all start to look more the same, and I find that less appealing than how things were before.

[motosapiens]

14 minutes ago, Twinkie said:

I get it, but the hip bone rule was a bit of flavor that has been lost. Now things will all start to look more the same, and I find that less appealing than how things were before.

I guess I don't spend too much time on the aesthetics of gear position, but if it's a topic of interest to you, just look at me.... I will still look old-school; gun and mags pretty much behind hipbone. There is not even a charge for this service.....  I'll be 3 squads behind you next week. See you then. 

[rowdyb]

38 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

squads behind you next week

I'm in squad 211! Say hello.